JUDGMENT : C.S.Dias,J. Will the property inherited by an issue-less female Hindu, who dies intestate, devolve on the heirs of her father is the point that emerges for consideration in this appeal? 2. The appellant had filed O.P (OS) No.1295/2008 against the respondents before the Family Court, Alappuzha, seeking a decree for recovery of money and gold ornaments. The appellant is the mother of late Prabha Kumari, who was the wife of the 1st respondent and the daughter-in-law of respondents 2 and 3. 3. The congealed facts in the original petition are: Prabha Kumari and 1st respondent were married on 1.9.2004. The couple was issue-less. Prabha Kumari died due to burn injuries on 13.9.2007. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam registered Crime No. 541/2007 against the respondents. Prabha Kumari was given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh only), as her share in her parental properties. The appellant also gave the respondents an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only), to construct a house. The respondents misappropriated the money and gold ornaments. On the death of Prabha Kumari, the appellant demanded for return of the money and gold ornaments, but the respondents refused to return the same. Hence the original petition. 4. The respondents refuted the allegations in the original petition in a joint written statement filed by them. They contended that the original petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties. Nevertheless, the respondents admitted that Prabha Kumari had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments, out of which the 1st respondent had sold two necklaces with the consent of the deceased. The 1st respondent is in possession of a chain, two ear rings, one ring and four bangles, belonging to the deceased. However, he is not liable to return the same to the appellant, being the husband and legal heir of Prabha Kumari. The entrustment of Rs.2,00,000/-was also denied. 5. The appellant and a witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked through them. The 1st respondent was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked through him in evidence. 6. The Family Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the original petition holding that the appellant had no legal right to lay a claim for the recovery of the money and gold ornaments of the deceased and that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. 7. 6. The Family Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the original petition holding that the appellant had no legal right to lay a claim for the recovery of the money and gold ornaments of the deceased and that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal is preferred. 8. Heard Sri.N.Asok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. K.Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ( in short “Act”), in its proper perspective. The Family Court ought to have decreed the original petition as prayed for, in light of Section 15(2) of the Act. He also contended that the Family Court ought to have allowed the original petition on the admission of the respondents that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to them and the 1st respondent had sold some of the ornaments and the residue is with him. Similarly, Ext.A6 bank statement substantiates that the appellant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2 lakh, which was entrusted to the respondents for constructing their house. Likewise, the finding of the Family Court that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties is untenable. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the appeal and original petition be allowed. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court. The Family Court has rightly construed the provisions of the Act and non-suited the appellant. The appellant is not entitled to recover any amount or the gold ornaments of Prabha Kumari from the respondents, as the appellant is not a legal heir of Prabha Kumari falling within the purview of Section 16 and the Schedule of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that Prabha Kumari, the appellant and the respondents are Hindus by religion, and are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. Section 15 of the Act, reads as follows: “S.15. 11. It is not in dispute that Prabha Kumari, the appellant and the respondents are Hindus by religion, and are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. Section 15 of the Act, reads as follows: “S.15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus:- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16,- (a) firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband, (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1)- (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father -in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. (c). any property inherited by a female Hindu from her pre-deceased son shall devolve, not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the predeceased son from whom she inherited the property.” 12. Section 15(2) is an exception to Section 15 (1) of the Act. 'Any property' , which includes movable and immovable property, inherited by a female Hindu from her parents, and she dying intestate and issueless, shall devolve on the legal heirs of her father. The provision does not take within its ken self-acquired property or property acquired other than by way of 'inheritance'. The word 'inheritance' is not defined in the Act. 13. The provision does not take within its ken self-acquired property or property acquired other than by way of 'inheritance'. The word 'inheritance' is not defined in the Act. 13. In V.Dandapani Chettiar v. Balasubramanian Chettiar [ 2003 (6) SCC 633 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court construing Section 15 (2) of the Act has held that the properties of a female Hindu who dies intestate shall devolve on the heirs as provided in Section 15 (2) of the Act. Paragraph 12 of the judgment reads thus: “A passage in the case of Ayi Ammal v.Subramania Asari can be beneficially reproduced hereunder (AIR 1966 Madras 369-70. para 2) Whereas succession to a female Hindu generally is provided for under sub-section (1) of Section 15 an exception has been en-grafted under sub-section (2) recognising a different mode of devolution in respect of property which the woman acquired by inheritance, in a way to a very limited extent recognising the old Hindu law in the matter, which restricted a woman's estate in inherited property and provided for its devolution as from the last full owner. Prima facie, the exception engrafted seeks to retain in the father's family property inherited by the deceased lady from her parents and similarly seeks to retain in the husband's family property inherited from her husband or father-in-law. The word 'inherit' means to receive as heir, that is, succession by descent.” 14. The High Court of Karnataka in Abdulla Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax [ (1989) 177 ITR 71 (Karnataka) has held as follows: “10. Now, let us examine whether the expression "inheritance and succession" could also included in it, the rules of Hindu Law of right by birth and survivorship and could be brought within its scope. The expressions "inheritance" and "succession" used in the enactment are not to be understood as restricted to passing of interest in property from the dead to the living but as covering also right and obligations that exist which are governed by Hindu Law. xxx xxx xxx xxx 12. The expressions "inheritance" and "succession" have been the subject-matter of consideration by court in India. There are at least two decisions. One of very high authority of the Federal Court in In re. Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937 MANU/FE/0003/1941 and another of the Madras High Court in Santhamma v. Neelamma AIR 1956 Mad 642 . The expressions "inheritance" and "succession" have been the subject-matter of consideration by court in India. There are at least two decisions. One of very high authority of the Federal Court in In re. Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937 MANU/FE/0003/1941 and another of the Madras High Court in Santhamma v. Neelamma AIR 1956 Mad 642 . The federal Court held in the said decision while dealing with the exact connotation of the expression "inheritance" and "succession" thus (see AIR 1956 Mad 642 ,650): "…. Many enactments of Parliament and of the Indian Legislature have used the words ‘inheritance’ and ‘succession’ in juxtaposition, justifying the inference that succession is either another category from or a wider category than inheritance........... If in these enactments succession should be held not to include the principal of survivorship, it would be difficult to say what else that word is meant to refer to and in any other view the continued administration of that part of the Hindu law by the British Indian Courts could not have been provided for, because there are not other appropriate words in those provisions." 13. Following this judgment the Madras High Court held that the expressions "inheritance" and "succession" as used into constitutional enactments are not to be understood as confined to cases of a "devolution" in the strict sense of the passing of interest in the property from the dead to the living but as comprehending also adjustment of the right and obligations that subsist between the parties governed by Hindu law, thus, the expressions "devolution" and "succession" cover the partition in a Hindu family. 15. Prabha Kumari died issueless and intestate. She also was not employed or having any source of income to acquire any property. The specific case of the appellant was that Prabhakumari was given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/- which she inherited as her share in her parental properties. The said averment in the original petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents in their written statement. The respondents have admitted that Prabha Kumari had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments, out of which two necklaces were sold by them with the alleged consent of the deceased and the remaining gold ornaments are in the possession of the 1st respondent. The respondents do not have a case that the jewellery and money were the self -acquired property of the deceased. The respondents do not have a case that the jewellery and money were the self -acquired property of the deceased. Hence, the jewellery and money can only be treated as the inherited property of the deceased. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Section 15 (2) of the Act comes into operation in the present case. 16. This Court in Alphonsa v. Neetha [ 2019 (4) KLT 846 ] and Royson Mathew v. Minimol [ 2020 (3) KLT 280 ] has held that the initial burden to prove the entrustment of gold and money is on the person who claims the decree for recovery of money, and unless there are pleadings/evidence on record to suggest that the entrustment was for a specific purpose or that the entrustment was in the nature of trust or under the specific understanding that the amounts will be returned, an action for recovery of money may not succeed. 17. Even though the appellant had averred in the original petition that she had given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, there is no proof regarding the entrustment and appropriation going by the ratio in Alphonsa and Royson Mathew (supra). Hence, we will have to only rely on the admission of the respondents in the written statement that they had appropriated 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the deceased. 18. Now coming to the question regarding recovery of the amounts of Rs.2,00,000/-paid by the appellant to the respondents for their house construction. 19. The appellant has proved by Ext.P6 bank statement that she had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her bank account, subsequent to the marriage and before the death of the deceased. The categoric pleading in the original petition was that the gold ornaments and the amount of Rs.2 lakh were entrusted to the respondents, as Prabha Kumari's share in her parental properties. The respondents have not disputed the fact regarding constructing a house during coverture. Taking note of the admission that the respondents had sold the gold ornaments of the deceased for constructing their house, the oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A6 bank statement and relying on the principles of preponderance of probability, we are convinced that the appellant had given an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-to the respondent to construct their house. 20. Taking note of the admission that the respondents had sold the gold ornaments of the deceased for constructing their house, the oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A6 bank statement and relying on the principles of preponderance of probability, we are convinced that the appellant had given an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-to the respondent to construct their house. 20. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, particularly the admission made by the respondents, we are of the definite opinion that the appellant is entitled for a decree to recover from the respondents an amount of Rs.2 lakh and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value of Rs.2,00,000/-, as claimed in the original petition. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, as follows: (i). The judgment and decree dated 17.12.2010 in O.P (OS) 1295/2010 is set aside. (ii) O.P (OS) No.1295/2010 is decreed by ordering the respondents to pay the appellant/petitioner an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-and return 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.2,00,000/-within one month from today, failing which the appellant is permitted to realise a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/-with interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation both personally and from the assets of the respondents. (iii) The appellant is also entitled to recover the entire costs of the proceedings from the respondents.